Hello.
This is situation that hapened during GP Madrid and is generating interesting debate on spanish forum but some judges have diferent opionios and we don´t agree about the correct ruling. It was posted by our colleague Jesús Chamón.
Adam has 3 cards in his hand and casts a Dig Through Time. When resolving he confuses it with Treasure Cruise (he plays both in his deck) and draws a card. At that moment he realises his mistake and calls you. After explaining the situation he asks if he may look at the top 6 cards on his library, choose just one and put it into his hand and the others on the bottom of his library; so consider that the drawn card was one of the choosen two due to Dig. Do you allow this? Why? If not, what do you do?
Cheers,
Javier.

I am very much okay with this solution. Has the player, in this case, done anything wrong so far? He has put one of the top 7 cards from his library into his hand, so long as he finishes resolving the Dig Through Time “properly” (this is one more card goes into his hand, and 5 go to the bottom of his library), I see no issues.

I mean, if I hypothetically know the top two cards of my library and cast Dig, should I be penalized for blindly taking the top 2 from my library, and pitching the next 5 to the bottom? If I know the top 2 win me the game, would I even really bother looking?

I think I'm fine with this. Drawing a card and putting a card into hand are indistinguishable physical actions. That he thought he was resolving a Cruise and therefore “drawing” as opposed to “putting” doesn't hold as an infraction for me. Dig allows the player to look at the top seven, and I'm not willing to say it's a GRV not to look. All that remains is ordering. Dig says look then put, so one might argue that since he's put one card in hand already, he can no longer look. I don't buy that either. He had permission to look at the cards while resolving the spell. Consider some similar scenarios: a normal resolution of dig where a player looks at seven, quickly selects one and slams it, but continues looking at the rest. It's all one action. What if he already had knowledge of the top of the library and moves the top card to hand otherwise blind? I'd certainly allow looking at the other six there.

In my opinion, Adam has just asked me if he can engage in Out-of-order sequencing. I see nothing wrong with allowing him to do so. I would not issue a penalty. I would ask him to be sufficiently careful next time.

Seems straight forward to me. Dig says that the player gets to look at seven and pick two. He has looked at one card and picked one. He gets to pick one more from the remaining six cards.

Furthermore, I would argue no infraction and no penalty. Dig doesn't care which of the cards you choose so long as you keep no more than two. So, at comp REL, my ruling is, “Please continue resolving your spell.”

I wouldn't berate a player for calling a judge here, but I also wouldn't
tell them they need to get a judge involved if they just did the proposed
solution by them selves.

I'd just hope that if the player hadn't suggested that solution that I
would have come to it my self.

No infraction and try to remember to give extra time if needed.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 1:12 PM, Nathen Millbank <
forum-14538-0a4e@apps.magicjudges.org> wrote:

> Seems straight forward to me. Dig says that the player gets to look at
> seven and pick two. He has looked at one card and picked one. He gets to
> pick one more from the remaining six cards.
>
> Furthermore, I would argue no infraction and no penalty. Dig doesn't care
> which of the cards you choose so long as you keep no more than two. So, at
> comp REL, my ruling is, “Please continue resolving your spell.”
>
> ——————————————————————————–
> If you want to respond to this thread, simply reply to this email. Or view
> and respond to this message on the web at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/post/93709/
>
> Disable all notifications for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/14538/
> Receive on-site notifications only for this topic:
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/forum/noemail/14538/?onsite=yes
>
> You can change your email notification settings at
> http://apps.magicjudges.org/notifications/settings/
>



–
Gareth Pye
Level 2 Judge, Melbourne, Australia
Australian MTG Forum: mtgau.com
gareth@cerberos.id.au - www.rockpaperdynamite.wordpress.com
“Dear God, I would like to file a bug report”

Have to agree to the proposed OoOS here - it's pretty much what I would use to solve this. I'd issue a caution to play more carefully in the future and have play resume.

OoOS seems to be the only way to resolve this neatly. Anything else is a massive mess.

Would anybody apply Drawing Extra Cards here?

Originally posted by Javier Martin:

Can we?
Are there any unaccounted cards in hand?
I think not, a spell was resolving and instructed a card to be placed in hand from the instructed area.

To me it seems no infraction has been committed here, the only option is to continue resolving the spell.